please suggest a starter kit...

I

iridium7777

Established
Local time
6:38 PM
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
197
well, a one lens starter kit anyways.

finally ordered my m6 ttl and it's in the mail, should have it by monday. now i need a lens.

i was thinking about sticking to something like a 35mm and a 50; but, the 35 is what i'd like to start with, i think it would be the best for my general photography.

there is no way i could afford leica glass right now at 35 nor possibly ever. i do want something better than average. should i just splurge and get the zeiss 35/2 lens or could someone suggest some other variants?

for the price of the zeiss lens, is there anything that's a better performer? i guess all lenses are comparable at f4+, but performance wise at wide open anything beats it at that price?

thanks.
 
iridium7777 said:
well, a one lens starter kit anyways.

finally ordered my m6 ttl and it's in the mail, should have it by monday. now i need a lens.

i was thinking about sticking to something like a 35mm and a 50; but, the 35 is what i'd like to start with, i think it would be the best for my general photography.

there is no way i could afford leica glass right now at 35 nor possibly ever. i do want something better than average. should i just splurge and get the zeiss 35/2 lens or could someone suggest some other variants?

for the price of the zeiss lens, is there anything that's a better performer? i guess all lenses are comparable at f4+, but performance wise at wide open anything beats it at that price?

thanks.
Click to expand...

Look at CV glass, they have three 35's, all of which are excellent performers, and offer great value for the money. Before spending a lot of money for lenses, I suggest you subscribe to Sean Reid's online review service ( some
USD 30 per year) and read his very interesting lens comparisons. Eg in his recent 35mm lens review the USD 209 (ad USD 55 for the M moint adapter) CV 35mm colour skopar performed excellently.
 
The Leica Summicron/Minolta Rokkor 40mm f/2 are great performers at a very good price, usually $250-300. The only setback is a tricky filter thread (series 5.5) on the Summicron compared to the more common 40.5mm thread on the Minoltas.

I bought my summicron 40mm for $200 and it's by far my most used lens. Sharp, nice bokeh, good contrast etc. The only thing I don't like is that it brings up the 50mm frame in the finder but that is easy to correct (with a small file), I haven't bothered to do that yet.
 
won't go wrong with Planar

won't go wrong with Planar

Hi Iridium,

I also started with one lens only (which was the heavy 2/90 Summicron for concerts). If your favourite focal length is 50 or 35 you won't go wrong with the new Zeiss lenses. I have an old 2/50 Summircon and recently bought a 50 Planar when the summicron was out for CLA. I have only used the Planar since then. The CV lenses are unbeatable in terms of value for money but performance wise the Zeiss are ahead. Between buying an old Leica or a new Zeiss which is somewhere same ballpark pricewise - go for the Zeiss.
Happy shooting - after the GAS :D .
 
There are a number of good 35s. The CV Ultron, the Konica M-Hexanon as well as the Zeiss M. There are others too. You should take a look over at a place like Flickr where you can see a bunch of pictures from each lens and decide for yourself which "look" you like best. I use a Leica 35/1.4 and really like it but I worked up to it via two CV lenses. The other issue is what is your definition of "better"? Sharpness, contrast? For me "better" is the overall look I get from a lens, difficult to articulate but includes adequate tonality, not too sharp and not too contrasty. I don't want my pictures to look like a dermatology exhibit so I'm not so hot on sharpness as a concept. But we are all different and you really do need to see a lens' output for yourself rather than depending on other's opinions.
 
i agree 'better' is a very broad term. one thing that can be summed up as better would be minimum distortion at wide open or any sort of wiggeting. there was an example posted here of a 40 nokton, i believe, where there was a cannon out in the field. you could see around the edges the photo wasn't as bright as in the middle.

am i mistaken and is this happens in all lenses or if one spends more one can expect the lens to no to exhibit that behavior?

if someone tells me that the zeiss lens also does that, then to me it doesn't matter, i might as well save myself $300+ and get the nokton.




peter_n said:
The other issue is what is your definition of "better"? Sharpness, contrast? For me "better" is the overall look I get from a lens, difficult to articulate but includes adequate tonality, not too sharp and not too contrasty. I don't want my pictures to look like a dermatology exhibit so I'm not so hot on sharpness as a concept. But we are all different and you really do need to see a lens' output for yourself rather than depending on other's opinions.
Click to expand...
 
I depends on how muh you want to spend, how big of an aperture you want or need for your style, and what angle of view you want the lens to take in.

Also 'starter kit' implies that this will become a system as you add more lenses and bodies. If so, you should look at what your finisher kit will look like and begin to build that.
 
iridium7777 said:
i agree 'better' is a very broad term. one thing that can be summed up as better would be minimum distortion at wide open or any sort of wiggeting. there was an example posted here of a 40 nokton, i believe, where there was a cannon out in the field. you could see around the edges the photo wasn't as bright as in the middle.
Click to expand...

Maybe those (from my PAW) ?

156650323-M.jpg


156650319-M.jpg


The Nokton does sometimes vignette, but I still don't understand why,
even though I have used it quite a bit, and also didn't see it in
systematic lens tests. I think it has to do with light polarization,
I have seen other well coated lenses do this, too.

It is a great lens though.

What you should pick depends on the kind of photos you want to
take and your budget, primarily.

For instance, the Nokton gives you shallow DOF at very close distances (.7m).
All the lenses mentioned above are really good. You might want to
browse the flickr M-mount forum and see what lens signature you
like.

Best,

Roland.
 
Well vignetting occurs in some lenses but not in others. The Leica Noctilux is good example because at f1.0 the corners are a couple of stops slower, thus you get the apparent light fall-off. I'm not a lens expert so I can't tell you which lenses vignette, but if you go to an image hosting site and look for full-frame images of the lenses you're interested in you will pretty soon find something you can live with.
 
The Zeiss Biogon is less expensive then the used v4 summicron 35 and a far better lens in every respect. It even has a slight edge on the asph 35 summicron. No better 35 at any price.
 
wordpress said:
I have owned the Summicron ASPH, but it was stolen. I'm trying to decide what to get, and had a good price on a Summilux ASPH. The Zeiss is what's holding me back. X-ray: You are one of the guys I've learned to respect here at RFF, and you've made me think hard about it. I do own the 50mm Planar, and that was the Leica GAS killer for me - I sold my 50mm Summicron after using that for a while.
Click to expand...


After using the 35 Biogon you'll never want the asph summicron again. I have both and there's nothing shabby about the asph but the Biogon is a notch ahead in optics and coatings. Nothing shabby about the mechanics of the Zeiss either as you know. When I bought the planar i too sold my 50 tabbed Summicron.
 
I'll second the 40mm Minolta. I have one on my CL and I am very plesenty surprised with it. Very good quality. It is wide enough to get a pretty good wide angle feel, but its not like a true wide anlge with the exaggerated field of view.

The downside, is that if you are planning on expanding your lens selection, the 40 makes a 50 and a 35 a bit redundant. Using the old rule of thumb about putting lens mm in terms of f-stop, a 40mm would go well with a 28mm and an 80mm.

I am still amazed how well my Jupiter-8 85/2 mm lens works, They are so cheap that you can buy something else later when you want to step up.
 
When it's about value-for-money, only the M-Hexanon 50mm 2.0 from Konica comes into play.

As many here and on photo.net have pointed out, is is even better built than a comparable Leica lens in terms of endurability and ruggedness, and provides equal quality.

Never mind the discussion on supposed incompatibility, many Leica lenses need adjustment to Leica bodies, I use my 28mm and 50mm M-Hexanons on a Minolta CLE and they perform stellar.


Last but not least: Just bought my M-Hexanon 50mm NEW off eBay for EUR 261.00 say US$ 300.00 Not even CV glass can beat this value-for-money!


In advance, I wish you many hours of joy with your newly acquired gear!


Cheers,

Johan
 
35mm F2 summicron ASPH. You can not go wrong if you can afford it. Sharp, fast, and compact; it is a proven lens. DR
 
Hi, again,

you might wanna shell out on a 35mm 2.0 L-Hexanon on the 'Bay: item nr. 150134441676.

It's gonna set you back US$ 870.00 but it's the same lens as was used by Konica on the Hexar AF and has a performance equalling the Summicrons. Well, so they say...!

Cheers,

Johan
 
I did not see what viewfinder you chose with the M6ttl. If it is the .85 you may not like how the 35mm framelines. I know I did not.

M6ttl (.85)... 40mm f/2 Rokkor or Summicron
m6ttl(.72)... 35mm f/2 Summicron
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom